Redpossum
Registered
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,969
- Likes
- 3,003
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has filed an appeal, listing the major ways in which the case against her was blatantly rigged.
www-pagina12-com-ar.translate.goog
The usual Google Translate deal, banner is in Castellano and story will initially appear in that tongue, but wait a few seconds and it will change to English.
In the detailed list of arguments against the ruling that condemned CFK, Beraldi and Llernovoy summarized:
*Cristina had no authority over the works carried out in Santa Cruz. Over the course of three years, there was not a single witness who indicated that she had intervened in any way. The works were voted on in the budget laws, they were put out to tender and controlled in Santa Cruz and were supervised by the National Highway Administration, which was a decentralized body. The General Audit Office of the Nation verified the budgets and made no objections.
*At the trial, all the chiefs of staff of the CFK administration - Alberto Fernández, Aníbal Fernández, Juan Manuel Abal Medina, Jorge Capitanich - pointed out that she never gave any instructions regarding these works.
* Rodolfo Barra himself , former minister of the Court and former Treasury attorney of the current government, presented an opinion stating that Cristina could not have any responsibility for the works in Santa Cruz because she lacked the authority.
*The case was based on 51 projects awarded to Lázaro Báez, out of a total of 81 that were carried out in the southern province. Other businessmen testified at the trial, pointing out that it was normal for local companies to win the bids because they had comparative advantages - personnel and machinery on site, experience in handling weather conditions - and these advantages translated into lower offers. This occurred in all provinces, but even more so in the remote ones, because it is expensive to transport personnel a thousand or 1,500 kilometers.
*The defense requested that a survey of the works be made at a national level to demonstrate the preeminence of local construction companies. This request was denied.
*The sentencing decision implies that Báez won the tenders because the other companies pretended to compete, but did not compete. In other words, they were accomplices. However, they did not accuse any of them.
*The defense also requested that the 51 works in question be examined. The Oral Court only agreed to examine five, chosen by the prosecution. But the experts did not agree and, most irregularly, they did not even meet to make the evaluations.
*The official expert, Eloy Bona, tweeted against Cristina. The defense asked for his removal, something that was also rejected.
*As the experts did not agree, the Court made its own calculation: “it was nothing more than speculation,” say Beraldi and Llernovoy.
*In the reasoning of the guilty verdict, it is argued that CFK was the president, she was above everything, and therefore she is responsible. The defense says that in the same verdict, the minister of the area, Julio De Vido, was correctly acquitted, because he does not appear to have had any involvement. CFK had even less involvement.
*The former president issued decree 54/2009 that allowed the works to be paid for with a trust fund based on the diesel tax. The judges held that the works to Báez were paid based on that decree. The defense claims that the decree served to carry out 100 different works, in all the provinces, and that decree remains in force today .
*A central point is that Beraldi-Llernovoy maintain that CFK was not judged by impartial judges. They played football at Macri's country house, went to Casa Rosada even during the trial, travelled to Lago Escondido and a host of other facts that demonstrate links with Macri, whose government was the plaintiff.
Cristina Kirchner presentó el recurso para que la condena por la causa Vialidad llegue a la Corte Suprema | El detallado listado sobre las irregularidades del proceso
La expresidenta pidió ser absuelta y presentó un informe en el que expuso las operaciones que montaron el macrismo y el Poder Judicial durante el juicio. El fiscal Mario Villar también recurrió el fallo y pidió aumentar la pena.
www-pagina12-com-ar.translate.goog
In the detailed list of arguments against the ruling that condemned CFK, Beraldi and Llernovoy summarized:
*Cristina had no authority over the works carried out in Santa Cruz. Over the course of three years, there was not a single witness who indicated that she had intervened in any way. The works were voted on in the budget laws, they were put out to tender and controlled in Santa Cruz and were supervised by the National Highway Administration, which was a decentralized body. The General Audit Office of the Nation verified the budgets and made no objections.
*At the trial, all the chiefs of staff of the CFK administration - Alberto Fernández, Aníbal Fernández, Juan Manuel Abal Medina, Jorge Capitanich - pointed out that she never gave any instructions regarding these works.
* Rodolfo Barra himself , former minister of the Court and former Treasury attorney of the current government, presented an opinion stating that Cristina could not have any responsibility for the works in Santa Cruz because she lacked the authority.
*The case was based on 51 projects awarded to Lázaro Báez, out of a total of 81 that were carried out in the southern province. Other businessmen testified at the trial, pointing out that it was normal for local companies to win the bids because they had comparative advantages - personnel and machinery on site, experience in handling weather conditions - and these advantages translated into lower offers. This occurred in all provinces, but even more so in the remote ones, because it is expensive to transport personnel a thousand or 1,500 kilometers.
*The defense requested that a survey of the works be made at a national level to demonstrate the preeminence of local construction companies. This request was denied.
*The sentencing decision implies that Báez won the tenders because the other companies pretended to compete, but did not compete. In other words, they were accomplices. However, they did not accuse any of them.
*The defense also requested that the 51 works in question be examined. The Oral Court only agreed to examine five, chosen by the prosecution. But the experts did not agree and, most irregularly, they did not even meet to make the evaluations.
*The official expert, Eloy Bona, tweeted against Cristina. The defense asked for his removal, something that was also rejected.
*As the experts did not agree, the Court made its own calculation: “it was nothing more than speculation,” say Beraldi and Llernovoy.
*In the reasoning of the guilty verdict, it is argued that CFK was the president, she was above everything, and therefore she is responsible. The defense says that in the same verdict, the minister of the area, Julio De Vido, was correctly acquitted, because he does not appear to have had any involvement. CFK had even less involvement.
*The former president issued decree 54/2009 that allowed the works to be paid for with a trust fund based on the diesel tax. The judges held that the works to Báez were paid based on that decree. The defense claims that the decree served to carry out 100 different works, in all the provinces, and that decree remains in force today .
*A central point is that Beraldi-Llernovoy maintain that CFK was not judged by impartial judges. They played football at Macri's country house, went to Casa Rosada even during the trial, travelled to Lago Escondido and a host of other facts that demonstrate links with Macri, whose government was the plaintiff.
